Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

Editors can post questions here about whether article content is compliant with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy, and editors interested in neutrality issues will give their opinion. If you are satisfied with a response, please tag your thread at the top with {{resolved}}.

For general questions about the NPOV policy, please go to the Neutral Point of View talk page.

Guidance on how to make articles conform to Wikipedia's neutrality policy can be found on pages listed in Category:Wikipedia neutral point of view, primarily the policy pages Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ. For a list of articles that have been marked as potentially containing a NPOV problem, see Category:NPOV disputes

If your question is about whether material constitutes original research, please use the No original research noticeboard. For review of whether a source is reliable, go to the Reliable sources noticeboard.

See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Neutrality and Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias whether these would be better venues for the issues you're trying to address.

Click here to post a new topic or discussion. NOTE: This noticeboard is intended for advice concerning specific NPOV issues. Please be concise. Post what is wrong with what content where, what you think it should say, and why. This board is intended for NPOV inquiries of a simple nature. For complex issues, please consider an article RFC or mediation. Be sure to provide evidence--links to sources, passages, etc.

Alternative Theory Critiques Need a more Neutral Stance to prevent violation of Wiki Policies

Meaning of the term "conspiracy theory"

Note: Copied from Controlled Demo page: I wholeheartedly agree that this article should be retitled. The additon of the word "conspiracy" only serves to make the article anything but neutral. The title of this article is in clear violation of Wiki's policy of a neutral point of view. An adequate title to remedy the situation might be : "World Trade Center Controlled Demolition Theory" or something to that effect.(Peterbadgely (talk) 21:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)) peterbadgely

I have reviewed the messages below this, and since one of the editors referred to "controlled demolition proponents" rather than using the word conspiracy, I feel that "proponents" may be an adequate remedy to the above violation of neutrality rules. Note that the word proponent was promoted by a detractor of the banned editor. There must be a more adult manner to deal with these alternative theories. Note that Wikipedia will be read centuries from now, so much the better if we look upon all sound (or arguable) theories with a neutral and inquisitive mind in the present day (2009).(Peterbadgely (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)) peterbadgely —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterbadgely (talk • contribs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterbadgely (talk • Just a note regarding your term sock puppet. before I just clicked on the term and read it's meaning I had no idea what it meant. I can assure you, that I am not that. I will update my personal page for clarification. thanks.contribs)

Unless the proponent believe in spontaneous detonation of explosives that just happened to be there for a benign reason, and it was all a huge coincidence, then they must believe in a conspiracy. No OR, just application of definitions. Now I don't believe that proponents of this "theory" do believe it was an accident or coincidence, and hence the article is correctly named. It is also correctly named per WP:COMMONNAME, and other guidelines, while not being in conflict with any wikipedia policies. It is neutral, and moving it towards the conspiracy POV would move it away from neutrality, not make it "more neutral". Verbal chat 08:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with Verbal, you can't have a CD w/o a conspiracy. Soxwon (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Which seems pretty obvious. The article is correctly named. Dougweller (talk) 10:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory promoters are pushing the idea that their conspiracy theories are something more substantial. Conspiracy theory is accurate terminology. We even have Category:Conspiracy theories. Jehochman ^Talk 14:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagreeing with Verbal, I quote:

:::like many other people who have read and misinterpreted [the essay There Are No Conspiracies], you are obviously confusing conspiracy theories with actual civil conspiracies, criminal conspiracies and political conspiracies, such the ones you mentioned. Domhoff isn't arguing that the latter don't exist (since that would be absurd), he is arguing that "conspiracy theory" has come to be defined as a theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators, such as a "secret team" or "shadow government", which contradicts institutional analysis. --Loremaster (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

As Richard Gage, the foremost promoter of the controlled demolition hypothesis, points out, he has no idea who planted the explosives, and he refuses to speculate because he is not a conspiracy theorist. He merely points out that a crime has been committed. That's documented in his CBS interview, which is archived. Therefore you can have a controlled demolition hypothesis without a conspiracy theory. So, we have four options. We can change the title of the article to make it honest, or we can Wikilink after we eliminate the social science references from the Conspiracy Theory article and replace them with social epistemology references to make that article honest, or we can eliminate Richard Gage from the present article, which leaves it dishonest, given his prominence, or we continue with the present BLP violation, which violates WP:Honesty about as much as is humanly possible. Wowest (talk) 16:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Richard Gage is not a reliable source. No person is considered a reliable source. Only third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are considered reliable sources and in this case, they refer to this as a conspiracy theory. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course you forgot to add that the NPOV academic sources such as NIST and Bazant et. al. that are used for all the 911 articles are excluded from your definition of reliable sources because they use the term hypothesis instead of conspiracy theory or is there another reason for ignoring them that I overlooked. Wayne (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

No one has referred to Richard Gage as a source here. --Cs32en (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I quote "As Richard Gage, the foremost promoter of the controlled demolition hypothesis, points out, he has no idea who planted the explosives, and he refuses to speculate because he is not a conspiracy theorist. He merely points out that a crime has been committed.". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thats an observation about Richard Gage, with CBS given as the source. It's included in a comment by a Wikipedia editor, not in a Wikipedia article. — Cs32en (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory-noun: a belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for an unexplained event.
Hypothesis-noun: a tentative theory; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena.
It is clear that the article content is more applicable to the second definition (what could have happened) than the first (who did it).
To use newspaper instead of encyclopedic terminology is POV and inappropriate in this instance. The Nist uses several phrases in ther reports when talking of controlled demolition. 1: Controlled demolition hypothesis (which is the most common term they use), 2: Controlled demolition theory, 3: Controlled demolition event and 4: an alternative hypothesis. Many books by academics debunking CD such as We See Conspiracies That Don't Exist The Physics of 911 and The Absurdity of Controlled Demolition also use the term Controlled Demolition Hypothesis instead of Conspiracy Theory. Based on their own comments I suspect that many editors supporting the current name do so solely because it is POV. Wayne (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The term "conspiracy theory" is generally intended to convey the impression that the proponents of the theory would think that all other people would conspire against them, covering things up etc. Thus, the pejorative meaning of the term is that the mindset of the proponents of such theories would be in some way identical or similar to that of people suffering from paranoia, a mental condition. Referring to a possible alternative meaning of "conspiracy theory", i.e. a theory about a conspiracy, obscures the primary intention with which the term is actually being used. The term is not a neutral expression and thus should not be used in an encyclopedia, except when attributing it to a notable person or institution that uses it. — Cs32en (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Policy advises not regimented aping of outside names, but rather the same thoughtful naming of any scholarly publication. I see Common Sense in WP:Words to avoid which warns us about words that editorialize and words with multiple meanings. Ponder the given negative examples of WP:Words to avoid, namely cult and fundamentalism , whose problematic nature is not hard to see. The same problems are found in the phrase CT, and this is evident in Conspiracy Theory itself.

The pejorative aspects of the term CT might be warranted for movements defined by unscholarly viral slander (not a match to our source selection). Again, CT might be warranted for movements whose sources focus dominantly on (a) theory (not evidence), and (b) recklessly slandering the "guilty" . Again, neither of these fit the selections of primary scholars-sources, which can help guide the title. Thus, The name (using CT) is falsifying. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 07:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

RE: S & D: The statement that CT is intrinsically necessary to the topic Controlled Demolition ("you can't have x without y"), is evidently being presented as a claim about the what the title here must be. This is flawed. There are countless things that might be automatically entailed in the phrase "Controlled Demolition" (you can't have it without people, time, physics), and the same goes for most or all WP topics. That anything is entailed in the term is not an argument that they are entailed in the title ("people time physics conspiracy theory?"). The entry for wp:cat is not called "cat animal meowing-thing". This was raised and perhaps missed. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 07:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

For context see

Connotation and WP:_homonyms and WP:_polysemes and Loaded words and

Code words redundancy -- Ihaveabutt (talk) 07:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Related problems with the term conspiracy in the title are

here -------------- Ihaveabutt (talk) 05:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You mean...

I know a term w/-connotations is open to POV pushing.--Ms dos mode (talk) 04:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources

If reliable sources such as The New York Times[1], The Washington Post[2], US News and World Report[3], USA Today[4], The Guardian[5], BBC News[6], Popular Mechanics[7], etc. all use the term conspiracy theory, then that's what we use. It's not our place as Wikipedia editors to say that they are wrong. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources." (WP:NPOV). This does refer to perspectives that are reported by those sources, it does not refer to how those sources present them. There is a reason why WP:NPOV uses the term "evidenced", which is not casual language. "It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively."

"Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it actually is. [...] Furthermore, one may not be able to write about a fringe theory in a neutral manner if there are no independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality about it." (WP:FRINGE) This does not mean: "You must write in a non-neutral way!" It means: "You may be unable to write in a non-neutral way." However, there are enough reliable sources on what the controlled demolition hypothesis is about, so there is nothing that would prevent us to present it an encyclopedic, neutral way. And of course we should report that it is a minority viewpoint and that most media refer to it as a fringe theory. — Cs32en (talk) 17:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources." It is evidenced here: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14].

For article titles, see WP:COMMONAME which says "Determine the most common name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly.......but which reliable sources? The arguably POV media or the supposedly NPOV academic ones? No matter how many times this is brought up you completely ignore it and keep falsly including NIST in the sources using "conspiracy theory". Please address this. Wayne (talk) 18:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"Exactly.......but which reliable sources? The arguably POV media or the supposedly NPOV academic ones?" We have a Reliable Sources Noticeboard. If you honestly think that The New York Times, The Washington Post, US News and World Report, USA Today, The Guardian, BBC News, and Popular Mechanics aren't reliable sources, then raise your concerns there.

"No matter how many times this is brought up you completely ignore it and keep falsly including NIST in the sources using 'conspiracy theory'. Please address this." I didn't include the NIST in the above list of sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

My apologies as I was not specifically refering to the "list" above but to one of your replies on the article talk page and the fact that you generalise about what RS are which includes it. Wayne (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You call subjects by the name, not by the attribute. Wikipedia:COMMONAME: "What word would the average user of Wikipedia put into the search engine?" You don't suppose anyone would look for "World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories", do you? If you google this, you get exactly 18 links at this moment, most of which point to Wikipedia content. So it is clear that "conspiracy theories" is not part of the commonly used name, while it may be an attribute used in connection with the topic. Attributes should, of course, not be part of encyclopedic lemmata. — Cs32en (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Your 1st link support a more NPV

• NY TIMESThe controlled-demolition theory is the sine qua non of the 9/11 movement — its basic claim and, in some sense, the one upon which all others rest. It is, of course, directly contradicted by the 10,000-page investigation by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which held that jet-fuel fires distressed the towers' structure, which eventually collapsed.

So does your third.

• US NewsIn the paper, Jones does not make specific accusations about who brought about the towers' collapse and avoids the casual finger-pointing that characterizes much of the movement. But when pressed, he cautiously blames the supposed demolition on Bush administration officials eager to sow war in the Middle East.

In fact none of them use the phrase "controlled demolition conspiracy theory" so I fail to see how you can argue WP:COMMONAME. I agree that the majority of main stream media is dismissive if not hostile to controlled demolition proponents and we should say that. Tony0937 (talk) 19:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Tony: You raise a good point and I've been concerned about this as well. Just to give you some background, the article used to be named "World Trade Center controlled demolition hypothesis". But the word "hypothesis" was disputed since reliable sources rarely use this term. So a couple weeks ago (or so) the article was renamed "World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theory". So for the past two weeks, the debate on that page has been whether the article should be "World Trade Center controlled demolition hypothesis" or "World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theory". If memory serves correctly, those were the only two suggestions for the article's title. Between those two choices, I voted for the later on the following basis:

"I did several Google searches on 'Controlled demolition hypothesis' and the vast majority of hits come from 9/11 conspiracy Web sites, none of which qualify as WP:RS. If you ignore the conspiracy Web sites (as we should) and only look at reliable sources, the term 'Controlled demolition hypothesis' is hardly ever used. The overwhelming majority of reliable sources refer to the "controlled demolition" of the World Trade Center as a conspiracy theory."

Obviously, I speak for myself and not any of the other editors, but that was my thinking. (How "World Trade Center" got prepended to the article's title, I don't know. I'm a relatively new editor.)

So really, the most commonly used name is simply "Controlled Demolition" but we can't use that since that's already taken for controlled demolition. How about "Controlled demolition (conspiracy theory)" for disambiguation purposes? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

That would not indicate that the article would have anything to do with the World trade center. We can assume that people who look for this topic would look for "WTC ...", "World Trade Center ...", "9/11 ...", "September 11 ...". And the article is not about controlled demolition (a well known concept), but about the hypothesis that such a controlled demolition occured (a notable minority viewpoint). So, actually, hypothesis (or theory) is the basic term that needs to be in the article's name. — Cs32en (talk) 21:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice WP:OR, but we're supposed to be following WP:RS. As I've already said, most (but not all) reliable sources don't use the word "hypothesis" in regards to the controlled demolition conspiracy theory. I've already provided seven cites to reliable sources - none of which use the term "hypothesis". I can provide more if need be. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Most of the sources that you have presented don't use any name for the subject of the article, and those that do are calling it hypothesis or theory. Your inference that they would call it conspiracy theory just because you can find the term "conspiracy theory" somewhere else in the articles that you present is WP:OR on your part. — Cs32en (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've looked again at the sources that were given:

• The New York Times calls it the "controlled-demolition theory"
• The Washington Post article and the Guardian article do not contain any name for it.
• The U.S. News and World Report does not contain a name but says that Steven Jones promotes conspiracy theories, and that he "suggests the towers were felled by a controlled demolition".
• USA Today does not contain a name but says: "[Seven WTC] has been the subject of a wide range of conspiracy theories [because of the suspicion] that someone intentionally blew up the building in a controlled demolition." For USA Today, controlled demolition may be one of several conspiracy theories. However, subsuming is not naming, and the Wikipedia article Dog is not called Dog animal. The wording of the BBC article is similar.
• The Popular Mechanics article does not even contain the word "controlled demolition".

However, the U.S. government agency NIST refers three times to controlled demolition hypothesis and once to controlled demolition theory [15].

So the only two sources that actually use a name (NYT and NIST) are using controlled demolition hypothesis or controlled demolition theory. — Cs32en (talk) 20:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, try this link.[16] "Controlled demolition" is mentioned 5 times. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. It's a bit the same as with USA Today. But as they have chosen the title "Debunking the 9/11 Myths", why don't we call the article "World Trade Center controlled demolition myth"? — Cs32en (talk) 00:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

TIME magazine calls it an explanation (Note: "explanation" does not mean "correct explanation" in this context): "There are two competing explanations for these puffs of dust: 1) the force of the collapsing upper floors raised the air pressure in the lower ones so dramatically that it actually blew out the windows. And 2) the towers did not collapse from the impact of two Boeing 767s and the ensuing fires. They were destroyed in a planned, controlled demolition." — Cs32en (talk) 02:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The word "conspiracy" used to describe this theory is inappropriate unless it is referring to Conspiracy(crime) (which it is not). Common sense and general awareness of the subject matter lead one (even after a cursory glance at the sources) to realize that the word is not neutral in this context. If Wiki desires to take a non-neutral stance regarding the issue, then this is another matter all together. However, since the so-called reliable sources use conspiracy to describe controlled demolition in a biased, negative, demeaning, and inappropriate way, can those reliable sources be used as a source for a word in a non-neutral title? It seems that an easy remedy would be for Wiki (as an encyclopedia) to distance itself from the biased information and simply rename the article. Can information which is not neutral be used in a title to a Wiki article as long as the slanted, biased, non-neutral term is from a reliable source? Is there a cost benefit analysis between reliable source and the policy of neutrality? (68.14.146.78 (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)) peterbadgely

OK, here are 20 reliable sources none of which even use the word "hypothesis" in reference to controlled demolition conspiracy theories. These are cites from major publications with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy such as Time Magazine, New York Times, and BBC News. All of these would pass muster on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. How long should we keep beating this dead horse? [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Some of those sources even use "conspiracy theory" in their titles. You're right that "hypothesis" is not used at all by reliable sources. It is a neologism contrived by those who promote fringe views. Jehochman ^Talk 02:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The only dead horse I see being beaten here is the assumption that anyone would doubt that these sources are reliable sources. The government agency NIST uses the terms "controlled demolition hypothesis" and "controlled demolition theory", and it's certainly not involved in contrieving language to promote fringe views. — Cs32en (talk) 02:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

{EC} Thank you. As Cs32en has pointed out, there are a few that do use the term "hypothesis", but these are a minority. The majority of reliable sources don't use this term at all. BTW, I also researched "myth" and while it's used by some reliable sources, most do not. "Conspiracy theory" is the term that is most commonly used by reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Most reliable sources do not use any name that refers to the topic of the article. Those that do are using the terms controlled demolition theory or controlled demolition hypothesis (NIST, NYT), while Popular Mechanics may implicitly use conspiracy theory, as its text is one of the few that address specifically the topic of our article and not some wider issue, such as the 9/11 Truth Movement in general. — Cs32en (talk) 03:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Most reliable sources simply use the name "controlled demolition" and describe it as a conspiracy theory, which is why I suggested "Controlled Demolition (Conspiracy Theory)" for disambiguation purposes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

With regard to the formal aspects of the naming issue, that would be a possible entry for a disambiguation page, as such entries are based on the principle of subsumption, and there are WP:RS sources that do such a subsumption with regard to the subject of the article (see my comments above). It would still not address the WP:NPOV problem. Newspaper language is different from encyclopedic language. The other problem is that the name itself would then be "controlled demolition", while people would search for something that has "World Trade Center" as part of the name. — Cs32en (talk) 03:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments on the legitimacy of this discussion

• Could an administrator please apply WP:ARB9/11#Discretionary sanctions to the single purpose accounts that are disrupting this thread with their WP:ICANTHEARYOU games? We've discussed these issues many times before. Jehochman ^Talk 22:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: Under the Controlled demolition page, there was a section which linked to this discussion of Neutrality page. There is NO attempt to purposefully disrupt or violate repetition rules. Peterbadgely has been a member for less than a week and is becoming accustomed to the process and rules. Peterbadgely respectfully requests that Jehochman consider this before requesting that sanctions be applied for unfounded and unsubstantiated accusations. Not only will peterbadgely branch out to other historical subject matter, but peterbadgely will improve the neutrality application of Wikipedia in general. (Peterbadgely (talk) 22:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

Further note: Is there a way that members can receive copy of another members lobbying efforts to get one sanctioned, so that a member can respond before a sanction is considered? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterbadgely (talk • contribs) 22:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You can stalk my contributions: Jehochman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Jehochman ^Talk 22:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I just wanted to understand your personality. If the administrators at Wiki are as intelligent as I think they are, then I believe they understand as well. Thank you. (Peterbadgely (talk) 22:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

The discussion that took place before the article was renamed started at 03:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC) and ended at 03:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC). 5 editors have participated in the discussion. This is probably not the appropriate way to proceed when dealing with a controversial topic. As the scope of the prior discussion was clearly insufficient for consensus building, I see this discussion here as legitimate. Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with bringing up the issue before the community if involved editors are unable to achieve consensus or if there are concerns that a given action is inconsistent with established Wikipedia policies, if this is not done repeatedly during a short period of time or in an otherwise distractive way. — Cs32en (talk) 02:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The request to rename the page was posted at 03:46 on 5 April. Three editors supported the change and one opposed over the next six hours before Jehochman assumed consensus and changed the name. Two of the three supporters lied to justify their support by stating NO RS uses the term hypothesis. None of the three supporters replied to the concern raised by the opposing editor. These actions are a violation of WP policy and policy requires the original name be reinstated pending consensus. This was requested at 08:02 on 6 April and denied, basically on the grounds that conspiracy theorists do not get a say. Several editors then restarted the section with suggestions for an alternative name without using either hypothesis or conspiracy theory to which a single editor replied (the only reply given) that only New York media "has any legitimacy" and all other media is "likely to be quite dubious". The discussion restarted again on 26 April with three editors for and three against. The next logical step is here as it is obvious there is not only no consensus but not even a legitimate willingness to debate on the part of supporters for the current name. When debate fails WP:ARB9/11#Discretionary sanctions are invoked and all opponents are accused of disruption which seems to be an increasingly common tactic. This issue is quite important to WP as it goes directly to the heart of WP's legitimacy as an encyclopedia. Is there someone in WP in a higher position than admin that can review the issues raised here? I apologise if I offend anyone but I have no faith that a popularly elected admin has the skills to mediate in this particlar case. Wayne (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Homeopathy

What about homeopathy? Every sentence/statement on that article is criticised and no defense is being allowed. In fact, some of the false propoganda/accusations are inflammatory.e.g.calling it pseudoscience, placebo therapy and quackery (scientific studies which prove its' efficacy aren't being allowed a mention on the article and a WHO document stating that licenses and professional qualifications are needed in most countries to practice it, are repeatedly taken out from the Lead, although it remains lower down in the article). A lot of skeptics who've been banned from other alt. med. articles (like Osteopathy, Naturopathy and Chiropractic) are still active on the article on homeopathy. I'm new here (by the number of edits/posts), so I want someone to mediate/arbitrate-in fact I've stopped editing anything on wikipedia in disgust for more than a month now. Please help!-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 03:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Comparison between Roman and Han Empires

Could someone take a look at this article as it reads very biased in favour of the Han empire over th Roman empire and the article appears only to exist to prove a point of the Han empire being better than the Roman empire. Another editor a few days ago did try to help by adding pictures to the article regarding the Roman empire but prior to this the article was dominanted with Han empire pictures. It seems in the article's history that one editor, user:teeninvestor, appears to dominate the article, treating it pretty much as their own pet project to push their own biased pro-China point of view, as can be seen in moreorless their entire contribution history as their account seems basically only to exist to futher a pro-China point of view across Wikipedia. Thank you. 88.109.22.102 (talk) 05:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this article to my attention. I have never seen an article like this in WP. It reads more like a thesis than an article. I'm not sure it has a proper place in WP. If it does, I'm going to write one too: Comparison of George W Bush and Satan. Or maybe: Comparison of George W Bush and Christ. Both seem about as reasonable of as Comparison between Roman and Han Empires.--nemonoman (talk) 13:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

nemonoman: NPOV would insist you write a Comparison of Christ and Satan page as well. That should make you popular. I'm going to take a look over there myself - I've noticed at least one editor who's pushed a Roman/Chinese connection theory on a couple of Chinese philosophy pages, so this problem might be a bit more spread out than it appears. --Ludwigs2 15:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It does seem very strange for an encyclopedia entry. Some of the material might be relevant within articles dealing with the limited contacts between the two, or as an illustration of Exceptionalism. I agree that articles on “Comparison between A and B” are out of place, however interesting the subject. Astynax (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking that, rather than trying making an issue of the article's POV or arguing about splitting it (articles already exist on the two empires), it would be best to nominate it as an AfD on the basis that it violates Wikipedia's standards for content. Astynax (talk) 03:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make that case, I'm certainly open to discussing it. what content guideline do you think it violates, though? the idea itself does have presence in scholarly sources (though not exactly in the way that it's being presented in the article), it's not exactly indiscriminate, not exactly original thought, not exactly a soapbox (though it is a little bit of all of them). I'm not quite sure you could get an AfD to fly, except maybe on notability grounds. plus, there are some valid and interesting sources tucked away in this mess. that's why I thought about splitting the article - take the comparative arguments and make them sections (or parts of sections) of the already established articles on the respective empires. that would keep what was good and useful in the article but give a chance to put it back into proper weight with the rest of the scholarship on the matter. the article itself we could shrink or turn into a disambig page.

sorry about the {{split-apart}} tag - there was no 'split and merge the pieces' tag that I could find. --Ludwigs2 04:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the subjective comparison implied by the title, I think it violates several of the guidelines. Primarily, comparisons of A vs. B are not subjects appropriate for an encyclopedia. The logic behind forbidding cross-categorizations would apply here - there are limitless such comparisons which could be made, as Neonoman noted). It also could be noted that it seems to violate the Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, Original thought, etc. This type of essay/comparison would be more appropriate in a Wiki other than Wikipedia. Astynax (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to remind: there has been Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison between Roman and Han Empires, deemed no "consensus". NVO (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

What if you clearly indicate in the Afd that this is to merge the information into other article? Which would essentially delete the original article? (note: Who do we give credit to though... the Original source, republished by Wikipedia editor in the deleted article? --CyclePat (talk) 16:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Parental alienation syndrome

There is a dispute at parental alienation syndrome regarding the neutrality of the article and references within the literature. Any comments on the page would be welcome. In particular, I wonder if my analysis here is sufficient to demonstrate that rejection of PAS is the norm and therefore it is undue weight to try to minimize them. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Referred to WP:ANI#Parental alienation syndrome. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a dispute at parental alienation syndrome PAS regarding the neutrality of the article and references within the literature. Any comments on the talk page would be welcome. In particular, I ask the community to evaluate an edit with regard to the scientific status of PAS: PAS is not accepted as a syndrome because (1) although most mental health and legal professionals agree that the phenomena of PAS does exist (2) there is no agreement as to whether or not PAS is an abnormal disturbance and (3) there is no agreement as to whether or not PAS is a useful new diagnostic category that is not better explained by a different diagnostic category or subsumed by an existing diagnostic category.

Here's the edit: [37]

It has been reverted, and the most recent justification has misrepresented the content of the edit.

Thank you, Michael H 34 (talk) 21:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

This may be a content dispute. There's a pretty extensive discussion here. I see it as an undue weight issue at least in part, so NPOV may be a good place to start. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Persecution of Falun Gong

I have previously made several cases [38], [39] [40] [41] questioning the use of the word "persecution" in the article's heading. I feel that the previous discussions with the involved parties produced little result, and would like to see if any third-party editors would be interested in mediating the dispute.

Basically, I feel that naming the ban of Falun Gong "persecution" signifies that Wikipedia endorses the view that the PRC politicians are criminals and that they have been found guilty of the crime. The term "persecution" is largely used by Falun Gong interest groups to describe their ordeal in the PRC eg CIPFG, while in the PRC, the ban is considered legitimate under the law. No third party eg United Nations HRC, Amnesty etc endoersed the term "persecution" or even have a set term on the FLG situation. The Chinese Wikipedia article [42] simply referred the situation as a "ban". Per WP:Naming conventions, article titles should be neutral and should not give bias towards one party.--PCPP (talk) 15:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"Persecution" is definitely non-neutral. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I would consider the term The Genocide against Falun Gong in the PRC as a viable alternative because it does fall under it's definition in wikipedia of "Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.". --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Please note that The Encarta defines the term persecution as "Determined effort of a government to punish, silence, or bring into obedience, usually in violation of normal moral and legal restrictions. Minority groups, especially religious ones, are a frequent target of persecution." There is nothing inherently POV about the term. All reliable sources we have refer to the human rights crisis in China a large scale persecution.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree - persecution seems the appropriate term here. Contrary to the OP's suggestion, the word 'persecution' says nothing wrt legality or criminality. --Jaymax (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

WT:WTA says to avoid terms that label, which is exactly what using a non-neutral term is trying to accomplish.--PCPP (talk) 13:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Schechter, Ownby, US Congress Resolutions, Amnesty International Reports, HRW Reports, Kilgour Matas all clearly and unequivocally state what is happening in China is a large scale persecution. Just to point out few instances from The Congressional Executive Commission on China, 2008 Annual Report:

The central government intensified its nine-year campaign of persecution against Falun Gong practitioners in the months leading up to the 2008 Beijing Summer Olympic Games.

Chinese government persecution of Falun Gong practitioners contravenes the standards in Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights..

Publicly available documents detail the central role of the 6-10 Office in the persecution of Falun Gong.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 15:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

House Concurrent Resolution 304, House Resolution 530, House Concurrent Resolution 188, House Concurrent Resolution 218 and House Concurrent Resolution 217 all clearly state the crisis is a nationwide persecution of innocents. Dilip rajeev (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The "U.N. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide" (in article 2) defines genocide as:

"...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:(a) Killing members of the group;(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

So i don't know about the term persecution, but according to the just mentioned definition given by the "U.N. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide", it certainly fits in the term genocide - i don't think even The Communist Party can deny that - as a matter of fact they don't even try to as they openly state that they would have to "wipe out Falun Gong". And YES Genocide IS a crime even by chinese law - as China signed the convention. So i guess that covers the term persecution as well. --Hoerth (talk) 18:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

This was discussed before see here: Talk:Persecution_of_Falun_Gong/Archive_1#Suppression_-.3E_Persecution --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Several references called the ban a crackdown, repression, suppression etc. [43][44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49][50] --PCPP (talk) 04:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have time to check all your sources, so I only checked the first one http://www.usembassy.it/pdf/other/RL33437.pdf and this states:

• "In the 109th Congress, H.Res. 608, agreed to in the House on June 12, 2006, condemns the “escalating levels of religious persecution” in China, including the “brutal campaign to eradicate Falun Gong.” H.Res. 794, passed by the House on June 12, 2006, calls upon the PRC to end its most egregious human rights abuses, including the persecution of Falun Gong."
• "For six consecutive years (1999- 2004), the U.S. Department of State has designated China a “country of particular concern” for “particularly severe violations of religious freedom,” including its persecution of Falun Gong. An ongoing ban on the export of crime control and detection instruments and equipment to China satisfies the requirements of P.L. 105- 292, the Freedom from Religious Persecution Act of 1998, which authorizes the President to impose sanctions upon countries that violate religious freedom."

If anyone else have time please check the other sources too. Thank You! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 08:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The same source also states:

• Since 2003, Falun Gong has been largely suppressed or pushed deep underground in China while it has thrived in overseas Chinese communities and Hong Kong.

• The official crackdown began on July 21, 1999, when Falun Gong was outlawed and an arrest warrant was issued for Li Hongzhi.

• Falun Gong Activities Underground and Overseas and Continued Government Repression. --PCPP (talk) 10:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

There are also countless references calling it a persecution. We don't call ducks flying feathered animals. Wikipedia doesn't bend over itself for political "sensitivies." What's the problem?--Asdfg12345 06:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is and Quoting free speech vs. quoting government resolutions. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 10:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Boo hoo. And there's several sources calling it law enforcement. Just because you think it's a persecution doesn't make it so. This is about what's the best wording for it on wikipedia, not the real life. As for "sensitivities", wikipedia looks for terms that is neutral to all parties, which is why the Kent State massacre is referred as Kent State shootings on wikipedia.--PCPP (talk) 07:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

When you say shooting instead of massacre, that does tell the story. But when you say ban, instead of genocide, that is hiding what is most essential. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Could everybody please indent for readability, this post is very hard to follow this way. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 10:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

PCPP, could you please say exactly what your concern is in calling a persecution a persecution? Do the namespaces Persecution of Christians, Persecution of Jews, Persecution of Muslims, Persecution of Hindus, Persecution of Bahá'ís, Persecution of atheists, Religious persecution, Ethnic persecution all bother you? Also could you tell us what exact issues you find with the term - which is defined as :"Determined effort of a government to punish, silence, or bring into obedience, usually in violation of normal moral and legal restrictions. Minority groups, especially religious ones, are a frequent target of persecution." (Encarta); "unfair or cruel treatment over a long period of time because of race, religion, or political beliefs " ( Cambridge); "persecute • verb 1 subject to prolonged hostility and ill-treatment... — Derivatives: persecution"(Oxford).

And also your claim in your first note is factually wrong - you may want to correct it in view of the links posted and statements pointed out above. Amnesty, HRW, US Congress, David Ownby, Kilgour Matas all refer to the crisis, unequivocally, as a large scale persecution and major violation of human-rights. Dilip rajeev (talk) 01:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Falun Gong also fits the dictionary definition of "cult", but we do not label them as such in wikipedia. WP:TITLE "An article's title should not be used as a precedent for the naming of any other articles". WP:NPOV "The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints." By calling it a persecution, you're endorsing the viewpoint that the PRC is committing a crime, however justified.--PCPP (talk) 05:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Under no definition does 'persecution' equate to 'committing a crime' - I have no real interest in this other than semantics, but this argument is nonsense.--Jaymax (talk) 06:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

"Persecution" might not be a neutral word, but, as far as I have seen, it's the term most often used in the RS, so it's the term we should be using. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with others that "persecution" is fine, as the most widely used term in reliable sources. It also has a wider meaning than something like "ban" or "outlawing", allowing us to discuss other alleged incidents of persecution beyond it simply being illegal in China.--Danaman5 (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

So are the terms "suppress", "crackdown", "ban" etc which are used interchangeably by the forementioned sources. WP:WTA clearly states to avoid non-neutral terms that label, which "persecution" is trying to express: an anti-Chinese bias. Furthermore the article was originally named "Suppression of FLG" until it was renamed by the pro-FLG editors following the ban of a FLG critic, whereas the Chinese wikipedia refer the FLG situation as "suppression" And the PRC's description of the anti-FLG campaign is "取缔", which translates to ban/outlaw/suppress, NOT persecute. The term "迫害" which is translated to "persecution" is widely used by FLG and its associated groups. The article should be renamed to Falun Gong in the People's Republic of China to avoid these labelling words.--PCPP (talk) 13:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The sources listed above didn't even agree on a single term to describe the ordeal, and it's mainly the FLG camp and their supporters trying to push the the view that the PRC is "persecuting" FLG, establishing several groups such as the Coalition Investigating the Persecution of FLG and World Organization Investigating the Persecution of FLG. By instating the term "persecution" you're trying to introduce systematic anti-PRC bias into the articles.--PCPP (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

So in your opinion there is no genocide going on, that is a "deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group."? See Appendix 7. Statements of the Government of China, Appendix 9. Physical Persecution of Falun Gong, Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, etc ... --HappyInGeneral (talk) 23:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Stop trying to push a point. According to the PRC government the ban is perfectly within legal rights [51]. And none of your sources claimed the ordeal of FLG was "genocide"--PCPP (talk) 03:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

"Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal." [52]. I read quite a few articles, I spoke with enough people, so I know that there is a genocide going on. I will insert the word genocide into articles only together with it's source. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hitler's actions is widely acknowledged and studied, which cannot be said about FLG. Hell there are arguments for "genocide" for every political power in historical existance. Wikipedia is not a place to spread things you made up yourself --PCPP (talk) 05:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• You are not making sense. At one point you are saying that genocide is done by every political power and second you are saying that I'm making things up. Please see WP:NPA and WP:GOODFAITH. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Regarding what you said that "Hitler's actions is widely acknowledged and studied", this is true as it is true that the crimes against Falun Gong are also very well documented, see the links above and also see the 3rd party links in the Persecution of Falun Gong article. Also please note that there still are people who deny that the holocaust took place. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You said I read quite a few articles, I spoke with enough people, so I know that there is a genocide going on. which is the original research you described. Second of all FLG's situation is still ongoing, and the extent of the ordeal is still disputed, so it's ridiculous to jump to conclusions for the reader, especially the article is written entirely from Western sources while all Chinese sources (which were once in the article but deleted) are systematically dismissed as "propaganda"--PCPP (talk) 14:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you completely missed this part of the user's comment: " I will insert the word genocide into articles only together with it's source." And that is what makes it not OR.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources - HRW, Amnesty, US Congress,( all major Human Rights organizations and governments, according to David Ownby), Kilgour-Matas, Danny Schechter, Ian Johnson all unambiguously state there is a large scale, nationwide persecution going on in China. There is nothing of an OR nature here. You can find a lot of Reliable sources linked to in this discussion as well. Remember, the persecutors' propaganda of disinformation, the curtain under which they manage to commit these most heinous crimes in China, is what you attempt to characterize as "chinese sources." There are several Chinese language sources - including from the Taiwanese Government which strongly criticize ccp's persecution of practitioners of Falun Gong.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

So? HappyInGeneral said that HE thinks there's a genocide, which is the OR I described, not to mention that few sources support the term, which pushes even more to POV territory than "persecution". Making up your own conclusions based on unsupported arguments also violates WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. The sources you described are simply expressing a view, and the PRC government is also expressing a view. As to your claim of Chinese sources being "persecutors' propaganda of disinformation", I stress again, it's up to the reader to decide what is truth and what is propaganda.--PCPP (talk) 13:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

What I think might be WP:POV or WP:OR as you say. However if a source is properly added to what I say then it's WP:RS a valuable edition to Wikipedia. Again, please see WP:NPA and WP:GOODFAITH, simply because you are pushing an agenda against me with half truths. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It's laughable that you accuse me of pushing agendas, when your userpage is nothing but blalant FLG promotional material. And WP:RS doesn't mean the sources can be used to draw your own conclusions.--PCPP (talk) 12:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

PCPP, although you lambaste another editor in this thread for what you consider Original Research (incorrectly, it seems), you have said that you "feel" that calling this situation "persecution" is equal to finding the PRC "guilty of the crime". Yet the Encarta definition quoted above points out that this is not always the case ("usually in violation of normal moral and legal restrictions"). If you are making that leap, is it not you who is making the OR presumption that this situation is a crime on the part of the PRC? You persist in noting that the Chinese language Wikipedia doesn't call it persecution, with no sense of irony. It seems par for the course that the entity participating in or codifying or condoning a policy of persecution is not going to admit it to be such while it is ongoing. Yet that doesn't mean that objective observers free from propagandizing one way or the other have to remain in similar denial about what is going on. The article for Waterboarding begins "Waterboarding is a form of torture..." Despite what one (or more?) U.S. administrations have to say about it, or neglect to say about it, or merely say about it, that does not change the definition throughout history, in textbooks, or here at Wikipedia. Will anybody be "found guilty of the crime" of waterboarding? That should be irrelevant to a clear-eyed and honest presentation of the subject here as multiply supported by notable, reliable sources. Such a word as torture shouldn't be construed as anti-American any more than this word persecution should be construed as anti-Chinese. Definitions are not indictments. (Would that it were so.) Only a legal system can indict someone for "the crime". Abrazame (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Country infobox maps

I'd like to point out a recent trend by some editors to include countries' territorial claims on infobox maps on country articles, which spark edit wars and destroys NPOV consensus on these articles. Such cases are the Argentina and People's Republic of China articles. Sihjop (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Rangers and Sectarianism-Lack of Balance

Any attempt to balance section to reflect episodes of perceived sectarianism with attempts to combat sectarianism are constantly removed despite all criteria being met. Numerous attempts at concilliation and discussion are rebuffed as such the article now contains factual errors.

02:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeekerAfterTruth (talk • contribs)

Greubel_Forsey - remove 'This article is written like an advertisment' tag.

Editor ukexpat added a 'This article is written like an advertisement' to an article I submitted on Greubel Forsey. I edited and rewrote the article following the Wikipidia Principles of Neutrality and have twice asked for reconsidereration and/or comments/suggestion but have had no reply (in many months).

May I please ask another editor to read the article and either remove the 'This article is written like an advertisment' or make suggestions as to what work needs to be done.

Thank you, User:Underthedial|IanS]] (talk) 08:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTE ? --Jaymax (talk) 09:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I edited the article a bit and left a few comments in the talk page. The article still reads a bit like an advert at some parts, so the tag should probably stay for now. (a comment for IanS, maintance tags are supposed to attract editors who are interested in solving that kind of problems. Those tags sometimes tend to stay stuck in some articles for years, but I am a witness that there are editors out there that are dedicated to solving very old tags, so they shouldn't usually be removed until the problem is solved, this advice applies mainly to maintenance tags in uncontroversial articles that don't receive much attention, it does not usually apply to stuff like NPOV tags being slapped without explanation in controversial articles that receive lots of attention. Those tags should not be interpreted as as an attack on the subject of the article, they are comments about how the text of the article itself needs to be improved. Also, while searching for what "iW magazine" was, I found Maitres du Temps and I had to tag it too, sorry for that but it has similar problems with bolding and stuff.)

About NPOV, since the tag is justified, this is not a NPOV problem but a problem of writing the article better, which takes quite a lot of experience. Myself I have only learned to copyedit specific stuff so I'm afraid that there is not an inmediate solution to the tag. The usual advice is editing other articles so you get more experience and gradually learn to write wikipedia articles better. Also try going to the featured articles list, pick a couple articles from a topic you like and read them to get a better feel of what is considered very good writing style in wikipedia. I have found that it has helped me in improving my presentation of topics.

Finally, I have to commend IanS for having so much patience and civility, and for assuming good faith of other editors. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

P.D.: I edited heavily the article and it seems like I managed to remove most of the advert problems, so I went ahead and removed the tag. Feel free to restore as necessary and give advice/complain in the talk page --Enric Naval (talk) 00:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Electromagnetic Therapy

Hi, I was wondering if we could get a little feedback regarding WP:NPOV and my analysis for the current naming dispute at Electromagnetic therapy (alternative medicine) vs. Electromagnetic therapy. For more information and to leave a comment, please see Talk page starting are Rename section. Thank you. --CyclePat (talk) 04:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Involved comment - I attempt to be neutral, but I think at least part of the problem involves editors talking past each other, so please correct me where I err. The issue, as far as I can tell, concerns whether it is fair to have two articles, one for medicine and one for alternative medicine, and the titling of the latter article; links are to current titles last I checked. Some editors feel that having two articles is necessary because the history, theory, and use of the two sets of applications fundamentally differ. Other editors feel that maintaining two articles is dismissive of part of the single topic and unsupported by the sources. Outside comments are welcome, especially since neither article is the best Wikipedia has to offer. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Involved comment - regarding above comment: This is a fair assesment of the current situation. Thank you. --CyclePat (talk) 04:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Human rights in the United States

This article is presently rising to the level of edit warring. I have tried to utilize the talk page to reach a consensus, to no avail. Each time an npov tag is placed on the article in question, it is removed. The problems with the article are as follows:

• The subject concerns Human rights in the United States. Notwithstanding, the article reflects a continuing critique of the United States' human rights policies OUTSIDE of the United States. It content forks into various topics, including enhanced interrogation techniques, that are given undue weight, or are totally inappropriate in the article in question.
• The article has been essentially "claimed" by the human rights advocates, and is by any standard decidedly anti-American. Those with countering (or even moderate) view points are treated with noted hostility, labelled as being from the "fringe elements of the American right", and their good faith comments are treated not only uncivilly, but immediately discounted as bad faith. This is a per se violation of Wikipedia policy in this area.
• Changes to the article of even a minor nature are immediately reverted with comments referring back to the talk page, where the issue of npov has not been resolved, and the hostility noted above is provided. There is an absolutist quality at work, that one view point is the "right" view point. This has made improvements to the article in question nearly impossible, unless one shares the absolutist views of a group of editors that have claimed the article.
• The article delves into Hurricane Katrine response as a human rights violation. This reflects adherence to a "fringe theory", as objectively, the size of the disastor area exceeded the size of the United Kingdom. Instead, the article focuses on the race and class of those in New Orleans, and then makes sweeping claims that a slow response (which included lilly white parishes surrounding New Orleans) was because of the "race and class" of the residents of New Orleans trapped at the Superdome. The accepted view is that the response to Hurricane Katrina was a failure in leadership at all levels, local, state and Federal, but it is not generally accepted that the response was a human rights violation per se.
• Pursuant to what I have noted above, I request assistance at this time in improving the article in question to meet neutrality standards, and to reflect the neutrality required by Wikipedia. I also ask for assistance in determining if the article in question adheres to a neutral point of view. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 14:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Please provide one reliable source that you feel best represents and supports your POV about Hurricane Katrina. I've looked at your edits and the talk page, and you appear to be POV pushing, and you have been very open about it. You also show no understanding of WP:FRINGE or WP:ENEMY and I have never seen you make a neutral edit. There are dozens, if not hundreds of reliable sources on human rights and Hurricane Katrina. For the record, I am an involved editor, but I would like to see this dispute resolved. Viriditas (talk) 00:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts. You appear to lack a basic understanding of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. I suggest you review them before posting further. My "POV" is to reach a "neutral" POV, and my edits reflect my attempts to reach neutrality.

The human rights stance on Hurricane Katrine stems from a strained reading of the U.N. Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, which provides that governments are responsible for preventingand avoiding conditions that might lead to displacement of persons, and for taking all measures possible to minimize displacement and its adverse effects. Under this theory, the US Army Corps of Engineers failed to meet this obligation by enforcing and/or re-building levees in New Orleans. The guiding principles also state a national governments’ obligations to protect people during displacement,regardless of whether that displacement is due to conflict or disaster. The Principles guarantee, among other things, the human right to dignity, security, liberty of movement, and respect of family life. They also forbid discrimination of any sort, whether it be on the basis of race, language, national origin, legal or social status, age, disability, or property. It is alleged that the US failed to meet this guiding principle when people without automobiles were not evacuated, and the majority of these individuals were black and/or the elderly. Prisoners were left behind in jails when cowardly guards fled their posts. The Guiding Principles obligate governments to provide humanitarian assistance to internally displaced persons in accordance with the principles of humanity and impartiality and without discrimination. They statethat international humanitarian organizations and other appropriate actors have the right to offer assistance and that consent to do so shall not be withheld—especially when authorities are unable or unwilling to provide the needed assistance themselves. They also mandate that international humanitarian organizations offering assistance are obligated to protect the human rights of IDPs. It is alleged that principles were not always honored in the wake of Hurricane Katrina because of fraud by private contractors, and refusal to accept aid from foreign governments, who offered medical aid and equipment, as well as the mismanagement of the American Red Cross in assisting with efforts. Other points include the cost of housing, medical care expenses, etc. Do we now have it all straight?[[53]]

The problem you have is rather obvious as the United States is a Federal Democracy, not a unitarian form of government. Government is shared in this case on three levels - municipal, state and federal. Each layer of government has a different job in disastor assistance. Municipal government normally provides the manpower and has jurisdiction over the means of providing logistics and evacuation plans from its jurisdiction. State government has, under the US constitution, primary jurisdiction over the health and welfare of its citizens. The federal government provides the monetary considerations and additional resources to assist in disastor relief. In this case, the first line of defense, the municpal government, fell apart, which meant that contray to their own evacuation plans, they failed to bus their own citizens without automonbiles out of the city. Instead, lines of busses were left in the city. The guards at the prisons you identify were municipal employees, and they abandoned their posts. The police force left. The next line was the State of Louisiana. Under law, the state has the primary power to assist its own municipalities. If this fails, the State then requests "Relief Disastor Assistance" from the federal government, which has to be invited into the territory of the "sovereign" state. Once requested, the federal government then declares the area in question a Federal Disastor Area, and FEMA enters the picture. In other words, the role of making such a request for federal aid and assistance falls to the Governor of the State. In this case it was Blanco, who dragged her feet for days.[[54]] The result was an epic breakdown in leadership on all levels of government. Bush could have declared martial law in the early hours, but that would most likely have lead to a separate human rights violation section. Once the federal government was allowed into the city, they engaged in rescue efforts and other steps to ensure food, medical care and other steps were taken for the remaining citizens. Couyld it have been done better? Certainly, but this particular disastor engulfed an area roughly the size of the United Kingdom, not just New Orleans. the entire number displaced? 400,000. [[55]] What does that mean? Take the entire population of Baltimore City, and find them new homes. Even the guidelines you cite to at Principle 7, subparagraph 2 state: "The authorities undertaking such displacement shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to the displaced persons, that such displacements are effected in satisfactory conditions of safety, nutrition, health and hygiene, and that members of the same family are not separated". I would suggest that housing and assistance for such a number of people was provided "to the greatest extent practicable". If you can find anything differnt, please let me know.

In conclusion, I don't think Hurricane Katrina was a Human Rights violation, I think it was a human disastor generally. It showed the pitfalls of lousy local leaders coupled with a gigantic natural disastor of biblical proportions that overwhelmed the federal government. I think its inclusion in this article is seriously misplaced, and that you are stretching by including it. It deserves its own article, but is not an example of a human rights violation in the United States, though the results of the bungling was human misery. Thank you. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 05:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Please find attached a link to Congressional Reports: H. Rpt. 109-377 – A Failure of Initiative: Final Report of the Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina, which further supports my point of view.[[56]] Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 05:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point. Now might be a good time for you to review Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing. In the above comment, you have not offered a single reliable source for your POV. Instead, you have presented your own opinion that you have interpreted from primary sources. Viriditas (talk) 08:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I provided several "reliable" sources that support my position from the Washington Post, a report on the Hurricane and leadership failures, and the Bi-Partisan Congressional Report on Hurricane Katrina response. Each lists leadership failures and incompetence as the leading factor at issue. If it is your contention that these sources are "unreliable", please provide specific arguyments to support this theory. As for your other points, I am "pushing" neutrality, which is a guideline that should be followed in any Wikipedia article. I direct your attention to WP:Neutrality, which you can review after WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. I have also reviewed Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing, which ironically talks about edit wars and undue weight, and rather amply makes my point. Thank you for referring me to it, and I suggest you give it a fresh read.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 14:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You have a basic misunderstanding of how reliable sources are used on Wikipedia. You have not offered a single reliable source that supports your claim about human rights and Hurricane Katrina, nor can you find one. What you did do, was collect primary and secondary sources together and then draw conclusions from them -- conclusions that do not appear in any one source. This is generally described as "original research" on Wikipedia and is not appropriate. If you wish to counter my statement, it will be very easy to do. All you need to do is provide one reliable source that shows, without any interpretation by yourself, that the U.S. response to Hurricane Katrina did not violate human rights. Multiple reliable sources have been provided that claim that it did, and it is our job as editors to represent the best sources. Now, if you wish to show that it is not, please point me to one source that represents your alternative opinion that this is a conspiratorial, fringe theory, as you claim. You also claimed that "it is not generally accepted that the response was a human rights violation per se." So, please, put up or shut up. If this doesn't make sense to you, please ask someone else to explain it. Viriditas (talk) 14:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for your predictably uncivil response.

A small sampling from the sources:

Put another way, there was a massive strategic failure of long-term federal planning that dwarfed tactical federal failures this past week, and a massive strategic and tactical failure of medium- and short-term state and local planning that dwarfed myriad cases of individual heroism. Worse, it is now clear that state officials refused to give their legally required consent to surrender control to federal authorities despite their own massive default on their obligation to protect the public. Instead, state officials jealously guarded their ultimate legal power of decision while shifting maximum responsibility to the federal government, thus creating an intolerable situation. Democratic Governor Kathleen Blanco thus refused a direct request on Friday, Sept. 2, from President Bush that the National Guard be federalized; Bush made the request after becoming disgusted with anarchic conditions at the Convention Center.

[[57]]

Hurricane Katrina displaced more than 400,000 people from the New Orleans area and the Mississippi Gulf Coast, according to a Census Bureau report to be released today, one of the most comprehensive looks at the hurricane-induced migration.

[[58]]

The failure of local, state, and federal governments to respond more effectively to Katrina — which had been predicted in theory for many years, and forecast with startling accuracy for five days — demonstrates that whatever improvements have been made to our capacity to respond to natural or man-made disasters, four and half years after 9/11, we are still not fully prepared. Local first responders were largely overwhelmed and unable to perform their duties, and the National Response Plan did not adequately provide a way for federal assets to quickly supplement or, if necessary, supplant first responders.

[[59]]

In not one of these sources does the term "human rights" appear. In not one of these sources does the conecpt even get discussed. Instead, the sources look to leadership failures at all three levels of government as causing the disastor in response. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 15:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Outside Viewpoint - since the sources don't discuss whether OR NOT there are human rights violations stemming from the handling of the disaster, they don't seem overly relevant. You need to find sources which DO ADDRESS human rights (perhaps in response to the sources currently in the article) rebutting their position. The sources quoted above to not preclude a 'human rights' perspective to the tragedy.--Jaymax (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

In other words, you cannot provide a single reliable source that supports your claim. Sorry, but you don't get to cherry-pick sources to support your interpretation of a particular issue. You either support your claims directly, or you drop your argument. Your argument is not based on any sources, but on your own personal opinion. If you are claiming that an article about human rights in the United States lacks neutrality, then the way we handle that on Wikipedia is to provide another POV. The topic is human rights, and unless you can directly address that topic with a source that actually discusses it, then you don't have an argument. Viriditas (talk) 15:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming your failure to read the sources, or perhaps your refusal to admit their existence. My points came from them (which is why they were cited), but if you want to maintain this stance of hostile denial, that's your business. I don't think it's really fooling anyone.Yachtsman1 (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, I've read the sources. You simply don't have an argument. You're reduced to cherry picking sources that don't discuss human rights, and because the sources you've cherry picked don't discuss human rights, you are saying that those that do are "fringe" and conspiratorial. That's ridiculous. To address and criticize the human rights question, you need to find a source that discusses it. Jumping up and down and pointing your fingers at material that doesn't even discuss it is absurd. This is pure foolishness. Viriditas (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yet the points you make are based on an underlying premise that the failure of the government to evacuate people from New Orleans was based on discrimination, and that the housing provided was equally based on discrimination, which brings the matter into human rights purview. The sources make clear that these situations arose from incompetence, not racial animus in violation of human rights. In other words, they counter the motive section of the article, which is required for an act of the government to violate human rights as against "minorities", the sole underlying basis for your primary source. Keep trying, though. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 15:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

They weren't my points, but the points made by the cited sources -- multiple sources you are ignoring. Do you understand that we write articles based on sources, here, and not opinion? It doesn't seem that you do. NPOV comes from the careful use of multiple sources. Unless you have sources that criticize the human rights issue, you don't have an argument. Viriditas (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Subject: Re. to first post regarding point #1. It is stated taht "The subject concerns Human rights in the United States. Notwithstanding, the article reflects a continuing critique of the United States' human rights policies OUTSIDE of the United States." I see where there may be a problem, but really this is just a paradox. The reason I say this is because of the article's title. I believe this is a type of POV or content fork to the main article which should probably be titled Human rights and the United States. As for "Human rights in the United States", why can't it be "Human rights "inside" the United States"? Nevertheless, this later suggestion doesn't really resolve the problem of Content forking issues and how editor or where they should present information regarding "outside policies". Hence, in think the argument you raise is valid regarding the article's title. If you take that into consideration then yes, there is an argument regarding WP:NPOV and content forking. But that's not really the case. This is because I believe the term "in", is used losely as a general term. Here at Wikipedia for articles it is used losely for a general perspective "in" or "from" that country or area. You may wish to consider, implementing information about "Policies within the US" but also consider "Outside policies (in or of the United States)". If there is enough information perhaps you should consider making or finding another article which deals with Human rights policies within the territory of the United States. But as is, not even having read the article, but just skimmed over the debate, it looks like you would have trouble doing this... and I recommend working on one article for now. As for the titles, I digress; "Human rights in the United States", "Human right of the United States, Human rights surounding the United States, Human rights throughout the United States, Human rights and the United States, Human rights inside the United States, Human rights outside the United States, Human rights inside of the United States, Human rights outside of the United States, Human rights inside and outside of the United States... or why not... Human rights policies of the United States, Human rights policies within the territory of the United States, etc... etc... All seem to be content forks of my recommend suggestion or the current articles title (which I also prefer and is quite clear that it should include "Inside" and "Outside" policies.) --CyclePat (talk) 17:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

P.s.: Look at that... my meandering thoughts do make sense.... the article was moved here originally from Human rights and the United States. --CyclePat (talk) 17:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Stepping back from the Katrina issue for a second, let me restate some issues I raised in the article's talk page.

• There is an undue Weight on current events on a country with 200+ years of civil rights history. Why focus on Abu Gharib as opposed to, say, My Lai?
• Entire sections seem entirely devoted to criticism of the United States, for example the Katrina sections and Justice system. The Death Penalty lacks a SINGLE PRO ARGUMENT. How is that balance?
• A HUGE overemphasis on criticism. No article on a subject, short of Satan himself, should have criticism of the subject in the very first paragraph.

As a random aside, 51% of the New Orleans fatalities were Black. New Orleans was at the time 70% Black. Doesn't that mean non-Blacks were disproportionately killed? Odd, considering the supposed reason the response was slow was race.Joker1189 (talk) 06:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to discuss Katrina with you, but you are welcome to address the rest of your issues on the article talk page. I'm curious what you mean by a pro-death penalty argument. Do you think that such a thing belongs in an article about human rights? Are you unaware that the very concept of the "death penalty" is generally viewed as a violation of human rights? Should we defend the violation of human rights in an article about human rights? I suppose it would be possible (or even necessary) to attribute the position of those who support violating human rights for informative and historical purposes. How would you recommend doing it? Viriditas (talk) 06:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Good, because I'm not going to claim any knowledge of that particular issue. But as for the Death Penalty, of course there needs to be pro arguments. First of all, the claim that the death penalty is is "generally viewed as a violation of human rights" is exactly what's wrong. The vast majority of Americans support the death penalty. In an article about the USA, that has to be addressed. Asking "Should we defend the violation of human rights?" is also the wrong way of thinking. Because once again, you are presupposing the death penalty is wrong. People in prison are also denied their right to movement and privacy. Most people see this as justified. For an article on prisons to look exclusively at those "human right abuses" without stating the reasons these rights are removed would be terribly POV. It's the same for the Death Penalty. Substantial margins support the revoking of the right to life of sufficiently heinous criminals. There is no mention in the article what these reasons would be.If I may make an analogy, when you put someone on trial for murder, you look at the mitigating circumstances. No judge says, "I don't think your defense is relevant. Should we really defend a violation of human rights in a court designed to uphold justice?" Unfortunately, the article in question has changed from a history of human rights in the United States to a show trial of perceived wrongs committed by the United States, with no pretense at balance on this particular issue.

I think this pretty much sums up most of the problems of the article. You need to have both sides of an issue, period, no discussion. WP:NPOV dictates and I quote:

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors.

You must give some space for counterpoints and be neutral. A simple laundry list of things the US didn't do isn't really informative unless you give the why (why it's a violation, and why it wasn't signed/adopted). For the prison system, a few isolated incidents are not sufficient, you need to back them up with other incidents. It might be a good thing to mention in the racial section any of the following: "The Underground Railroad," "The Civil Rights movement," "Montgomery Bus Boycott," "SNCC," "SCLC," "Martin Luther King Jr.," THE FREAKING EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION, 13TH, AND 15TH AMENDMENTS!!! Omitting such things in that section alone really hurts the article as a whole. Soxwon (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The article the section links to, Capital Punishment Debate, as has to address the debate. But compare the two articles' opening:

Opponents of the death penalty often state one or more of the following reasons as the basis for their opposition: the possibility of the execution of an innocent person; the lack of deterrence of violent crime; and opposition to the death penalty based on a moral or religious basis. Supporters of the death penalty often state one or more of the following reasons as the basis for their support: the deterrence of violent crime; closure to the families and friends of the victim (in practice, the death penalty is used almost exclusively to punish convicted murderers); and the belief that a temporary prison sentence is not effective punishment for such an act.

vs.

Capital punishment is controversial. Death penalty opponents regard the death penalty as inhumane[64] and criticize it for its irreversibility[65] and assert that it lacks a deterrent effect,[66] as have several studies[67][68] and debunking studies which claim to show a deterrent effect.[69] According to Amnesty International, "the death penalty is the ultimate, irreversible denial of human rights."[65]

The first adequately explains the debate surrounding the death penalty. The second states exclusively the arguments of the opposition while preemptively denying an argument from the proponents(deterrence). That is unacceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joker1189 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, the claim that the death penalty is is "generally viewed as a violation of human rights" is exactly what's wrong.

No, it is exactly right. You counter with "the vast majority of Americans support the death penalty" which doesn't even address the isssue, but avoids it altogether. What the vast majority of people believe doesn't change the fact that it is generally viewed as a violation of human rights. Only 13% of Americans believe in natural evolution. Does that change the fact that evolution is generally viewed as valid? Please name a single human rights commission, organization, group, or paper that claims the death penalty promotes human rights. You won't find one. Your argument assumes that this is a matter of public opinion. It isn't. We don't write encylcopedia articles based on what the general public thinks or believes. The article is about human rights in the United States. It's not about the death penalty debate or a debate about universal healthcare or any other debate except human rights. If you can address that point, then great. If not, it doesn't belong in the article. What does belong, is a discussion about how the death penalty is used in the United States, why the data shows there is an imbalance in its use, and why it is viewed by human rights groups as a violation of Articles 2 and 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Counterpoints to these types of points are always welcome as long as they address the human rights questions and are based on good, reliable sources that directly discuss human rights in the U.S. Viriditas (talk) 00:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

So the fact that a human rights organization doesn't mention it gives you the excuse to simply criticize without mentioning context (i.e. why the "reforms" haven't been put into place, what problems each proposal entails). You can't just give this one-sided view of things, that's not how this works. Soxwon (talk) 00:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Please put aside your strong POV for a moment. All of our articles are based on good sources. If you can't find good sources for your "counterpoint" that you propose, then they don't get added. It's that simple. If you can be specific, I can give a specific answer. FWIW, my only interest here has been the coverage of Katrina, but I'm willing to address anything as long as I have the time. Quickly looking at GBooks, I see America Without The Death Penalty: States Leading The Way (2005) a book that includes some views closer to your own, but you would need to read it carefully to prepare a good counterpoint. You keep making accusations about what I am doing, but I am not the author of this material. Take a step back, inhale deeply, and try to make your point. Viriditas (talk) 00:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

My strong POV? The Katrina section is in the worst shape as it cites two partisan sources and then misquotes an AP article so badly it might as well just get deleted. I can find sources about the counterpoints fairly easily, the problem is I have a feeling they will be deleted b/c they're "POV." I really don't have that strong a feeling, but this article is a joke. You have a racial section without the Emancipation Proclamation, 13th, or 15th amendments. NPOV requires you to give the differing viewpoints on any subject. Soxwon (talk) 00:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, your very strong POV, stronger than most people on Wikipedia I would guess. I'll discuss the Katrina section with you on the talk page of the article. I'm not aware of any misquoting of an AP source, so you'll have to bring it up there. I haven't seen any good sources that counterpoint the human rights situation regarding Katrina, so please, by all means bring them up on the talk page. However, given the sources to work with, it would be much easier for you to address the death penalty issue. For example, Joker1189 gave a highly partisan and biased description of the issue, ignoring the great history of the death penalty in the U.S. In the source I gave you above (Galliher et al. 2005), we discover that contrary to what Joker1189 claims, support for capital punishment in the U.S. dropped to 42 percent in 1966, and was suspended from 1972 through 1976. Joker1189 fails to recognize this changing viewpoint. The same source goes on to say that in 1999, even thought the United Nations Commission on Human Rights "supported a worldwide moratorium on executions in nations that maintain capital punishment", human rights group Amnesty International observed a year later that, "88 percent of all known executions took place in China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the USA." According to the source, in regards to the human rights issue concerning the death penalty, "on the world stage the United States is in the company of what many describe as terrorist states." Could you respond to that? How would you, with your diametrically-opposed POV, go about incorporating this material into the article? Or would your strong POV prevent you from doing this? Would you put aside your POV and add it to the article per WP:ENEMY? Viriditas (talk) 01:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It's obvious you are only going to offer accusations and misquotings of wikipedia policy then I'm going to have to go to the wikipedia cabal. Soxwon (talk) 01:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I've responded to your claim about the Katrina material on the talk page. Please address it there. I would be happy to fix it or remove it if you can support your claim. As for the above, it is a thought experiment. You are faced with adding material you personally disagree with to the article. How do you proceed? Please answer my question as it pertains directly to the NPOV problem. As far as I can tell, you are willing to add material to the article that supports your POV, but you are refusing to write for the enemy to explain the other side. Am I wrong? Then, answer the question. Viriditas (talk) 01:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I had already answered it and I even spelled it out for you. You still have major NPOV issues with this article in terms of what is covered and what isn't and the overwhelming amount of attackish material against the US, mainly making use of specific incidents at the expense of historical gains and accomplishments. Soxwon (talk) 01:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You should seek to find, include and cite those "historical gains and accomplishments" WRT human rights in the article. It seems to me that both sides here would do better looking for sources to support their POV - nothing wrong with having or even promoting POV so long as RS support is found, and the POVs are balanced in the article. Arguing back and forth here brings nothing of value to those reading the article. From the outside, the US has a fascinating Human Rights story to tell, going from legal Racial segregation in the United States to a Black president in 50 years?1?!!!eleven!! It would be naive(false?) to pretend that Katrina doesn't have a human rights element - but that's not the entire story - those who feel that the "expense of historical gains and accomplishments" is being missed should seek to add same (well sourced of course) to the article, rather than attacking those who still see HR violation in modern America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaymax (talk • contribs) 12:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see an answer. You defend the use of "counterpoints" that support your POV, but you aren't willing to include points made by other POV. I don't have any NPOV issues, as I welcome any and all POV that are relevant, topical, and well-sourced. The article, however, does have issues, and I encourage you to keep the issues in focus and the complaints about editors to a minimum. Viriditas (talk) 01:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Whoever said we would be removing the "points" critical of the United States? To date, those remain, yet any point that is supportive of America's human rights record has been removed as "POV". In other words, the current POV favors criticism of the United States in the area of human rights, while anything that counters that POV is not welcome in the article as a "POV" violation. This is circular reasoning at its finest. All this affects is neutrality, and both points and views should be represented in the article. Thank you.Yachtsman1 (talk) 21:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

New articles on history of Cyprus - nationalistic

A new editor, user:CeterisParibus xcs has created a series of long articles on aspects of the history of Cyprus. I found three of them in the list of new articles to be wikified. None of them are wikified at all, the formatting isn't good, and it's quite likely that some or all of the text is plagiarised. They are all written from a pro-Turkish Cypriot point of view. It would be good if some more people could have a look at them. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Bilderberg Group

Combined with the fact that we have a List of Bilderberg attendees which raises BLP problems if this article turns into an attack article, this article needs to be kept as NPOV as we can. I'm just fending off attempts to make it even more pov right now, but it needs work to make it balanced. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really that knowledgable about the Bilderberg Group, but I can watch it and revert any obvious cases of vandalism. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

List of Houston Rockets seasons

I am concerned about User:Infonerd2216's insistence in inserting the word "tough" in a statement about the playoffs series with the Lakers. I reverted his edit because of pov concern and more importantly, adding this descriptive word doesn't increase readers' knowledge about the subject. I tried to explain to him several times about this, but he refused to listen and even resorting to personal attacks.[60] I think something should be done.—Chris! _ct 01:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree; "tough" is subjective—who's to decide what "tough" means? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, if that user continues to make personal attacks such as those above, he should be blocked. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed the word again, as it is clearly POV, and no consensus exists for its inclusion. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

He just tried to re-insert another POV adjective, "hard", but it has essentially the same meaning. —LOL ^T/_C 02:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Is "Smear campaign" NPOV language?

I have issue with User:Axfield's edits to the Parents Television Council article. He keeps referring to a PTC campaign urging advertisers to boycott the program WWE SmackDown! as a "smear campaign". While it's factually correct that WWE sued PTC and won over libel, is it a bit POV to lead the paragraph/section with such language implying viewpoint rather than let the reader interpret the facts for him/herself? --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 02:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Last week or so i filed an RFC on the talk page but have not gotten a third opinion. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 02:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

One important question would be whether reliable sources have called this a smear campaign. If it turns out that multiple sources have used that term it may be appropiate in that situation to mention that it has been generally viewd as one with references to back it up. If not, it would be better not to use the term.--70.24.177.30 (talk) 01:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Reginald Klimionok

This page reads like an advertisement. It also omits important information, such as the reasons for Klimionok being sacked from the Garden City Christian Church. This is an indication to me that the article is extremely one-sided. The final paragraph is a shameless ad for his current church that could have been copied straight from the local classifieds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.250.65.21 (talk) 13:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I toned down the hagiography a bit. It still does not say anything about him leaving the Garden City Christian Church, and should not say anything unless there is a good source. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Paul of Tarsus and Judaism

The bulk of this article is written as if it is the truth, not a view. Moreover, the view that is presented is not clearly identified. Other views are presented in only one section, and not at length. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

University of Phoenix

May I get opinions on the POV/neutrality of this page? --Caernarvon (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a pronounced attempt to minimize well sourced criticism of UofP in this article. if the administrator was to look at the history of the article, they would see a gradual erosion to the point where the article is solely promotional and omits well documented critical views. Moreover, non-neutral or poorly sourced articles are used in lieu of better sourced articles to promote UofP policies in the interest of "balance".Mysteryquest (talk) 12:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess I was hoping for the opinion of a non-involved, third party source - though it's always nice to hear from you, Mysteryquest! --Caernarvon (talk) 02:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Is calling Taiwan a "self-governing island" neutral?

A dispute is going on the Taiwan article. One editor added that is it is a "self-governing" island and provided four sources for it. Some editors claim that it is not neutral to call it so, because according to the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China, Taiwan is part of China and therefore can't be self-governing. The PRC's claims, however, are mentioned in the article so in my opinion all the POVs are correctly represented with an equal weight. So the question is: should the "self-governing island" statement stay or be removed? Any help regarding this issue would be appreciated. A discussion is already going on on the talk page. Thanks. Laurent (talk) 13:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The whole issue, including the neutrality dispute, seems to belong somewhere else, as the article is about Taiwan, the island, not about the Republic of China, the political entity.  Cs32en  15:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I think someone has unwittingly transposed a territorial question with transposed it with a legal question. Taiwan may or may not legally be the property of the ROC, but as to who actually GOVERNS the island of Taiwan, that is not in dispute. As to the question of whether or not this is relevant in an article about geography, that's another matter entirely. The article about the continent of Australia, for example, doesn't mention who's governing what. Perhaps more relevant, neither does Geography of Sri Lanka.

The Australia article does talk about the government. The Geography of Sri Lanka would be a relevant comparison for the Geography of Taiwan article, but it is not a good comparison for the Taiwan article. The Ireland article describes the government situation early on. But comparisons to other articles should not be determinative because Taiwan is in a unique situation. The current government has a confusing name and is a transplant (the ROC from 1912 to 1945 has practically no territory in common with the ROC from 1949 to the present). I can think of no other country in the world for which this is true. Readin (talk) 01:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion of the word scandal

In the article Disclosure of expenses of Members of the United Kingdom Parliament there is a discussion which had now become almost circular regarding the inclusion of the word scandal in some form in the title. Can a completely disinterested party from outside of the UK who is entirely unfamiliar wit the subject take a disinterested look at the article and surrounding arguments. For the talk please see here and for the article please see here.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Second Sino-Japanese War

This article was recently edited to remove the communist Chinese from the infobox, [61]. The discussion is here [62] Sherzo (talk) 05:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Socionics

A dispute has recently arisen over the inclusion of a section allegedly linking socionics to the western zodiac, chakras, tattwas, alchemy, and other forms of mysticism. One author claims that several sources primarily written in Russian demonstrate the existence "strong verifiable ties" between socionics and mysticism, while others believe that this conclusion is unwarranted. For the relevant section, please see Socionics#Esoteric_links_to_Socionics For the discussion, please see Talk:Socionics#Removing:_Esoteric_links_to_Socionics. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 04:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Mohamed ElBaradei - too many fringy/propaganda citations. mediation going no where.

First, I know this might be the wrong place but I don't know where am I'm supposed to go. We need a new mediator at Talk:Mohamed ElBaradei. User:Kevin left following an unresolvable dispute with myself and now the article discussion has been going nowhere. If you would like to mediate, we need someone who is constantly there and doesn't just pop in and out. A little off-topic but I thought I'd throw a request out there. If someone would like to direct me to the appropriate board that would be great.

Editors User:NPguy and User:69.217.67.104 and I are currently the primary editors at ME but as of late I've been informally collectively "ignored" for being "unproductive."

Editors are currently posting drafts on non-notable subjects while filtering out relevant information that is sourced by primary and reliable references. This can be found here: Support for Israel/ME section. These same editors have claimed Press TV and Tehran Times, among other state-run news services qualify as reliable sources under wikipedia:reliable sources. I cite policy, explain why it is complete nonsense and violates the essence of NPOV and BLP laws but still am told to be more civil and actually read policy. Ugh.

I asked the IP and everyone else to find a 3rd party wikipedia-certified reliable source but no one has shown anything. IP posted this to qualify his ignorance of wiki policy: [Its my opinion that an op-ed written by the subject of a biography, the IAEA, the National Academies Press, the Global Security Newswire, and the Arms Control Association are reputable and reliable sources.

• National Academies Press - iffy. Not enough to carry an entire section.

• [63]. - Doesn't look like a reliable source and I don't see it in database.

• International Atomic Energy Agency. Primary source and only reliable in its own context. In this case we are promoting something both inside and outside the IAEA. We need a 3rd party reliable source to support and also demonstrate notability which no user has done. This is probably why I'm being ignored because editors know they can't calculate notability.

• Arms Control Association. Yeah, special-interests and certainly not an RS.

This is a major issue and isn't a unique example. The entire article is supported by this kind of attitude, and the IP being the one who has controlled the editing process until I showed up clearly doesn't like someone who throws policies at his face and tells him he is wrong over and over again.

I've been sent to ANI by the IP during the mediation even though it violated mediation laws and most recently the IP filed a bogus etiquette report here. The ANI can be found at the etiquette page. IP likes to post it whenever he speaks with someone of authority.

It really bothers me how the discussion can continue to rely on totally unreliable sources that create an imbalance (see the actual article for evidence) and POV fork and nobody cares. No one. Within a day you will see user NPguy and IP, perhaps others come in here and characterize my person and post diffs to support. Then say how I've been obstructing the editing process, etc. We've had those vicious convos before and they tend to derail these incident reports. I won't engage (this time) unless it relates to the information above. If the article is saved and I get blocked it would totally worth it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Scientific political correctness

If an editor's contributions on a science-related article are repeatedly reverted by other major contributors, leading to the insidious suppression of a particular scientific theory or hypothesis, with the apparent (but unstated) motive being the defense of a more popular scientific theory with which the suppressed idea is at odds, does this situation fall under WP:NPOV? It seems to me that this is essentially a question of neutrality because the undue suppression of an established theory (or undue promotion of a novel theory) is a denial of the proper balance of giving equal weight to all theories found in reliable secondary sources. I certainly would not suggest that a theory advanced by only a single source (not notable) or only by primary sources (a novel theory) should be given credence on WP's articles. But on the other hand, a theory that has been around for decades and is discussed in multiple reliable sources should not be entirely suppressed just because it is inconsistent with another, more popular theory. Any thoughts? Wilhelm_meis (talk) 13:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

If you have a specific article and a specific dispute in mind, please provide the links. If this is a purely hypothetical question (meaning you have no specific dispute you are referring to) then the answer would have to be "it depends on the coverage given in mainstream reliable sources to the non-mainstream theory." It is impossible to say "yes the alternative theory should be covered" or "no it shouldn't be in the article" without knowing specifics about the actual theory in question, and without being able to research exactly what degree and quality of coverage there is. Understand that POV pushing and pushing of fringe theories to be included in articles is a huge problem on Wikipedia, so it is impossible to categorically state whether minor/less popular theories should be included without researching the specific article and specific theory in question. (no, I am not in any way implying you are "pushing" a POV, simply noting that without more detail about the dispute there is no accurate answer that can be provided for you here, if this is a quesion about a specific dispute/theory.) The Seeker 4 Talk 14:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Any examples you might have would be a big help, rather than provide a strong answer on a hypothetical. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand your perspective. The reason for my hesitation to point to a specific case is that in the case in mind, there has been no end to the edit warring and no shortage of editors jumping on the bandwagon to revert away nearly everything a user is contributing. I do not wish at this point to bring on another deluge to drown out altogether an editor who has made some useful contributions and is getting very frustrated with this situation. I think the particulars of this case may be best summed up by an IP user here. I have tried to assist the above mentioned editor with some advice on how best to broach the subject on the talk page and how to avoid getting reverted, and I have at some times, for various reasons, agreed with some of the reversions, but I don't think he should be pushed out of the project altogether. I would appreciate any further guidance anyone can give, as regards following policies and procedures on WP. Thank you for looking. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... interesting, and a situation I may have to look into a bit more broadly since I am unfamiliar with it at a necessary level. Just to make sure I understand this, in the interest of keeping the peace the edits you made remove a brief section of language that has been involved in a revert war concerning the actual number of theories that fall under the term, correct? Seems like a reasonable solution for the time being while the central issue is hashed out. As for the content dispute itself, if two theories are the most widely accepted, while the third is not well sourced, then the two primary theories would have greater weight in this article while the third theory could have some mention if it has reputable sources behind it (in this case, I would imagine some level of peer review). On the other hand, if the third theory has not gained any thorough review, but is merely proposed, then it probably does not bear mention in the article at this time even if the individual presenting the theory is credible. However, while the article could continue to define the topic as containing two main theories, a sentence toward the end with appropriate sources mentioning a proposed third theory would not necessarily be problematic. However, this is really a superficial answer on my part. I would be happy to look it over a bit more in the next 48 hours. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we are of like mind. I'm not jumping to one side or the other in this dispute, mostly just trying to quiet down the warring, but I think if D. Tombe or the IP editors can provide solid sources (the Goldstein equation is in there, and some potential sources for their interpretation of it have been mentioned on the talk page), then I think their interpretation should stand as a third option, regardless of what loose ends this might have regarding relativity. On the other hand, since this is certainly a minority opinion, I think it only appropriate to give it less weight in the article prose. I don't think it should be jettisoned altogether, however, if it can be proved that it is not WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, and that it is a notable theory. I also do not wish to see a potentially invaluable editor pushed out of the project because his scientific views are unpopular and his methods are a bit rough around the edges. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 05:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Montana Freemen needs eyes

"Montana Freemen" has been mentioned in mainstream news in connection with the recent shooting of physician George Tiller.
"Montana Freemen" was, as far as I can make out, a separatist group, sometimes called "Christian Patriot", some of whose members ran afoul of the legal system (FBI siege, trials, prison sentences.)
Based on the connection with recent news, we can expect this article to get a lot of attention over the next few days and weeks.
The article has been extensively revised over the last few days, with IMHO the effect of making our article more sympathetic to this group and removing or minimizing criticism.
I'm no expert on this subject myself, however, I'd like all editors to be sure that the article remains balanced, NPOV, and cited. Thanks.-- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Homeopathy

I'd posted this above, but due to low visibility I'm putting it under a new section, I hope someone can reply:-

What about homeopathy? Every sentence/statement on that article is criticised and no defense is being allowed. In fact, some of the false propoganda/accusations are inflammatory.e.g.calling it pseudoscience, placebo therapy and quackery (scientific studies which prove its' efficacy aren't being allowed a mention on the article and a WHO document stating that licenses and professional qualifications are needed in most countries to practice it, are repeatedly taken out from the Lead, although it remains lower down in the article). A lot of skeptics who've been banned from other alt. med. articles (like Osteopathy, Naturopathy and Chiropractic) are still active on the article on homeopathy. I'm new here (by the number of edits/posts), so I want someone to mediate/arbitrate-in fact I've stopped editing anything on wikipedia in disgust for more than a month now. Please help!-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 05:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)